Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article pertains to the relationship between exclusion and ministry. In it, I suggest that the vulnerability entailed by the threat and actuality of exclusion can act as common ground between those who experience different, more tangible, vulnerabilities (relating, for example, to gender, sexuality, or disability). Furthermore, I want to argue for the value in ministry undertaken by the excluded themselves: not for the institutional sanctioning of individuals deemed unfit for ministry but, rather, for the sacredness of ministerial endeavours outside of the institutional church (where selective inclusivity alienates the marginalized and vulnerable). To illustrate this, I discuss the public life and work of Sinéad O’Connor, the controversial Irish musician and priest. O’Connor advocates for an “alternative,” broadly Christian “church,” attempting to destabilize the relationship between unfamiliarity and vulnerability, for example, through her self-identification as a female Catholic priest and her active ministry. Drawing from René Girard’s mimetic theory, Michel de Certeau’s account of necessary boundaries, and Judith Butler’s discussion of alterity between the self and the other, I contend that vulnerability to exclusion, modelled in community, can engender radical openness to difference, thereby facilitating inclusivity, even within complex, intersectional communities. This openness to difference can render contentious figures like O’Connor more, and not less, suitable for ministry, able as they are to minister where the church cannot.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".